gentlemen, a year ago during the previous session of the general assembly, we submitted our application for consideration by the security council to allow the state of palestine to assume its rightful place among the community of nations as a full member in the united nations. and up for it was voiced by against this political, diplomatic, peaceful step aimed at saving the peace process by asserting its basis and foundation. however, our endeavor was aided by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world supported and continue to support our application. i see not even a single reason

for denying this request. yet, when the countries of the world had the opportunity to declare their stance without any vetoes last autumn, they voted. they voted despite enormous pressures and strong support of the acceptance of palestine as a member of unesco -- a year has passed. palestine, the homeland of edward said, is planning a role in new unesco, high responsibility and professionalism. palestine is committed to international conventions and is cooperating with all states to advance the objectives of the organization. it is providing a model of what

a positive, constructive contribution in international organizations would be. in order to enhance the chances for peace, ladies and gentlemen, we would continue our efforts to obtain full membership for palestine at the united nations. [applause] and for the same purpose, we have begun intensive confrontation with the various regional organizations and member states aimed at having the general assembly adopted a resolution considering the state of palestine a non-member state of the united nations during this session.

we are confident that the vast majority of the countries of the world support our endeavor aimed at salvaging the chances for peace. in our endeavor, we do not seek to delegitimize an existing state, that is, israel, but rather to assert the state that must be recognized, palestine. [applause] we are not attempting to delegitimized them. they are trying to delegitimize us. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, more than at 64 years have passed.

a large portion of those who were the immediate victims and witnessed it have died, have died with their memories preserved in their minds and hearts about their beautiful world that was devastated, their homes that were demolished, their peaceful villages that were erased from existence. about the renaissance that was undermined. about their loved ones, women and children, who were killed in massacres, attacks, raids, and incursions. about their beautiful country that was the beacon of coexistence, tolerance, progress, a crossroads of civilization. they died in camps of

displacement and refuge to which they were expelled following the operating from their homeland as they awaited the moment in which they would resume their suspended lives and complete their journey that was interrupted, and repair their shattered dreams. they died while their claim to legitimate rights to justice and freedom, and to redress the historic and unprecedented justice inflicted upon them. has not the time come to undo this and justice -- in justice? -- injustice? 77% of the palestinian people are under the age of 35. they did not experience the horrors. they know very well all its horrendous details from the

accounts told to them by their parents and grandparents, who endured a period -- who endured it. they are suffering from the ongoing effects every day as a result of the practices of the occupation and the settlers on a land that is diminishing and horizon before them blocked against their simple, ordinary dreams. they see their homeland and their present and future vulnerable to continued usurpation. they firmly believe it will not allow it to happen again. i say to you, ladies and gentlemen, the braves palestinian people will not allow themselves to be the victim. my people will continue their steadfastness and their eternal

survival journey in their beloved homeland. every inch of which carries the evidence and landmark of their roots and unique connections throughout ancient history. there is no homeland for us except palestine. there is no land for us but palestine. we shall not accept an alternative homeland, nor an alternative land. palestine is our homeland, and shall remain our homeland. our people will continue in their state, and will continue to strive to achieve national reconciliation to restore the unity of our nation, people, and institutions via resorting to

the ballot boxes of our peoples pleura stick democratic choice. our people -- pluralistic democratic choice. our people are committed to peaceful democratic rescission consistent with international humanitarian law -- resistance, consistent with international humanitarian law, against settler occupation and for the sake of freedoms and peace. ladies and gentlemen, prevent the occurrence of another -- -- more violence in the holy land. prevent the occurrence in the holy land. support the realization of a free, independent state of palestine now. may peace be victorious before it is too late. peace be upon you. [applause]

>> the president of libya also spoke to the general assembly for half an hour. his comments include his thoughts and the recent violence in his country that led to the deaths of four americans. >> in the name of god, his compassion and, mr. president. majesties, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure at the outset to express my congratulations to mr. jeremich on his election to the presidency of the general assembly. i should also like to commend

another leader for his leadership at last year's session. i should like to express our sincere gratitude and k-meciation to mr. ban oon secretary-general, of -- ban ki-moon, secretary general of the united nations, for his starters, objectives, and purposes. mr. president -- three years ago, a despot who rolled my country for 43 years -- ruled my country for 43 years, he stood on this very platform and torpor a copy of the charter of -- tore a copy of the united nations, saying he did not recognize the authority of the document.

today, i am standing on the same platform, asserting my country's support of the charter of the united nations and our respect for it. i stand before you today, before the entire world, to apologize for all the harm, all the crime, committed by that despot against so many innocents. to apologize for the extortion and terrorism he meted on so many states. i should like to stress that the libyan people is determined to build a state that respects its neighbors. one that respects its international commitments. one that respects human rights and believes that genuine peace

in the world will not be realized unless every individual is focused on peace. libya shall be a land of peace and security. mr. president, i am speaking today before this august assembly to bring you the greetings of the libyan people. a a people the thatrose on february 17 -- a people that arose in a comprehensive, explosive revolution that shook the very foundations of the regime of the lunatic desperate muammar qaddafi, who declared he will burn at libya, would destroy libya, make it swim in a bloodbath. he killed thousands of

civilians, recruited mercenaries from everywhere, cost everything and ordered his militias and mercenaries to rape minors. one who destroyed cities. but our people did not kneel, did not back down. thousands of marchers were lost -- were lost. among the wounded and lost -- the price of freedom was in blood, lives, amputated limbs, and lost youth. mr. president, from this place, and the cap -- on behalf of the libyan people, i treaty organization of the united nations that stood by our people, by our will for freedom against blood loss and nihili sm. when that adopted resolutions

1970 and 1973 to protect the innocents in libya against crimes and against violations of human rights. mr. president, i stand before you today representing the libyan people, a people that is building the institutions of democracy following the fall of dictatorship. the world has witnessed the first free, transparent elections in libya, where the general national council was elected. i was honored to be elected as its leader. the world, through these united nations, give us complete, genuine support for that achievement. in a revolution for freedom, in the challenge of establishing

democracy, the conscience of the world was with us. both in deeds and in soul. support was offered from everyone, and from everywhere. among those offering help was ambassador chris stevens, a voice of reason and conscience. a man of love, a messenger of friendship who came to libya following the outbreak of our freedom revolution. one who touched the people's feelings. who traveled from tripoli to the western mountains and back, and all across libya. chris stevens spoke with everyone in arabic, always smiled, and showed care. this human diplomat has found

his place in the consciousness of the libyan people. it was a day of great sadness throughout libya when he was assassinated along with his three aides. we would like to express our deepest concern and condolences to the american people for this great loss. it was a loss for libya, as it was a loss for the united states of america. we stress to the united states, its governments, and its people, this -- catastrophe will only increase our solidarity to entrench the hopes and objectives in which ambassador chris stevens believed, we shall

defeat the backward terrorists who do not represent libya, who do not represent islam. islam is a religion of tolerance, peace, and love, just as president obama said, from this platform two days ago. our future is a future that will be charted by people like chris stevens, not people like his killers. in this context, i would like to express my condolences to the libyan people and to others for the death of the person who has joined the long list of martyrs from five days ago. mr. president, i would like to express our deep appreciation for the understanding showed by

the u.s. administration following that incident. let me stress that my country is determined to pursue the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. we shall make our utmost to strengthen the necessary protection granted to diplomatic and consular missions, and to insure the safety of their employees and facilities. this painful event in no way expresses the feelings of the libyan people, a people of moderation, hospitality, and gratitude. perhaps the large demonstrations condemning this insidious crime in the city of benghazi and other libyan cities is the best

proof of the true feelings of the libyan people and the for rejection of all forms of violence and extremism. libya shall never be home to extremist groups. we shall always be a peaceful muslim country, one of moderation. mr. president, of the new libya shall be based on a democracy, openness, transparency, combating corruption, enabling women and youth. it will be a libya by all and for all at the same time. i cannot fail to condemn the anti-islam campaigns and those defaming the prophet. such campaigns increase hatred.

they aim at provocation and tension in relations amongst civilizations. they go beyond the concept of free expression. this makes it necessary for the general assembly of the united nations to adopt a covenant in order to criminalize insulting of the symbols of all religions. we, as muslims, believe fully in the unity of mankind, the brotherhood of man, and we express our support for dialogue between religions and corporations, tolerance and

humanitarian values. therefore, my country supports all efforts being made in the dialogue between civilizations, cultures, and religions within the united nations and other organizations. mr. president, since the revolution since17 february 2011, -- since the revolution of 17 february 2011, libya has witnessed an uprising against social injustice and political oppression. this did not stop at merely changing the dictatorial ruling regime. indeed, it went forward towards a full transformation and a genuine democratic system based on the respective promotion of human rights, multi-party political systems, the peaceful

handing over of power, and the commitment to the principles of international law as well as the charter of the united nations. perhaps you have followed the consecutive political developments in libya in the past few months on the road to democratic transformation. the rebuilding of state institutions. the election of the general national congress that will, through a constituent assembly, draft a permanent constitution of libya, the creation of the first provisional government following elections that were fully democratic, as witnessed by international observers. we shall work to rebuild, to reorganize, and reform state institutions, particularly the police force, the national army,

and the judiciary. we shall also work to implement various programs to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the revolutionaries in the defense and interior ministries, as well as other state institutions. for the first time since independence, we have political parties in the political arena. there is freedom of expression and the press. there is freedom, unconditional freedom, to demonstrate. freedom of association, freedom to set up civil institutions, unions, as well as political and social, intellectual organizations, without any limitation. this has led to a free dialogue and participation by all people in all parts of the world. mr. president, the era of the

previous regime, for more than four decades, saw flagrant violations of human rights, acts of torture, detention without trial, extra judiciary killing, forced disappearance, mistreatment, humiliation of citizens. when the revolution erupted on 17 february through peaceful demonstrations, as the previous regime faced them down with bullets and oppression in a grave violation of inteational humanitarian law and human rights law. hence, the human rights council suspended libya's membership in said council and set up an international fact-finding commission and expressed the

condemnation of the international community for such violations. of that commission did certify violations of human rights by the regime forces and violations, the hands of some revolutionaries. therefore, libyan authorities have taken the human-rights file to a higher level. mr. president, some wonder, was the arab spring worthy of support? to them, i would say, would it have been better for the corrupt dictatorial regimes to remain in place for decades more, oppressing, meting out injustice, arbitrary treatment, corruption, and the violation of the most fundamental human

rights? should they have been allowed to continue pillaging the wealth of the peoples, leaving some among those oppressed people to extremism? and follow with a particular agenda that goes against peace and security, ones who resort to sarah's and -- terrorism. democracy did not come to france following the french revolution in a year or even a decade following the revolution. indeed, this was the case in other states of the world that gained their freedoms. this was followed by instability and sometimes very long, bloody civil wars. mr. president, as -- at this new stage of building the new libya, we face threats and challenges

that are very serious and threaten national and regional security because of a legitimate and someaddafi's sons elements of the previous regime who are wanted by the lot and have found safe harbor in some neighboring countries. others who are committing criminal acts, and threatening security and stability in syria. we also face other security threats -- drug trafficking, the trafficking of psychotropic drugs, illegal immigration, the trafficking of weapons. as you know, the nature and scope of these threats to national security and our borders requires bilateral as well as a multilateral response

to promote and strengthen national efforts. therefore, last march, my country hosted the regional ministerial conference on the security of borders, and a plan of action, the tripoli plan of action, was adopted in order to consol that -- consolidate and share information and expertise. among our national priorities is the libyan right to restitution of moneys that were pillaged from the treasury and secreted to outside the country. these moneys were used to finance criminal acts in order to destabilize libya and threaten its security. this also effects neighboring countries.

we would call on all our friends to insure the special rights to libyan investments, as well as to the properties of the libyan state in other countries, not to touch them, and particularly in some countries in africa, latin america, and asia, where those funds have been subject to some coercive measures by some governments. in this context, we call on all states of the world to cooperate to combat corruption and money laundering. we call on financial institutions, particularly in some western countries and some islands, to bear those responsibilities and not to accept suspicious funds, particularly from third-world dictators who are bleeding the wealth of their people and hide

those funds under a fictitious companies. in march of 2010, the world financial integrity, the global financial integrity issued a report estimating that the offshore growth deposit was $10 trillion u.s. dollars. we look forward to the timing and ratification -- signing and renter -- ratification of an anti-corruption convention by the 130 states. we believe this would promote cooperation among the states to combat corruption. and to restitute stolen funds. we also support the united nations convention against corruption. it is the first convention of its kind. it is binding legally and internationally by chapter

eight, and of mr. dmitrijeva -- mr. mitri as the new head of the cooperation and mr. president, libya is committed to all of its commitments in all international instruments on this mormon and -- on disarmament and the maintenance of international peace and security. we are prepared to cooperate with the united -- the international community to implement the provisions of the international agreement and protocols in order to create an international environment that will make progress toward ridding the world definitively of weapons of mass destruction. we are also determined to review all other international instruments to which we are not

parties, and to take their corporate decision until a constitution is adopted and parliament elected. -- are appropriate decision until a constitution is adopted and parliament elected. we condemn israel oppose the measures in attempting to judaize the occupied land. it is a violation of humanitarian law. we call on the international community to take its responsibility by taking urgent, strong measures to put an end to israeli aggression, and to assure full protection to

palestinians, as well as a radical solution through a settlement, assuring the withdrawal of israel from all occupied lands, and the return of all palestinian refugees to their homes, the establishment of the independent state in accordance with relevant international resolutions. the suffering of the syrian people is unimaginable. the regime in power is requesting the -- is attacking its citizens violently, shedding their blood. it has caused the regime to lose its legitimacy. in order to put an end to such a tragedy, libya urges the security council to act promptly in accordance with the principle of the responsibility

to protect and take immediate action to end all forms of murder, violence, and destruction, and find a way out of this crisis toward a peaceful transition toward power. in order to ensure the transition to a peaceful power, this has not been achieved so far. however, with the cooperation of the member states in the security council, and with -- by supporting the efforts of the joint envoy of the arab league and the united nations, this may be obtained. libya condemns the social injustice, harassment, and killing against the muslim

minority in myanmar. this is a flagrant violation of international human rights. we call all relevant institutions to immediately intervene to put an end to this tragedy. we underline the necessity of forming an international committee to hold those responsible for the killing and violence and bringing to justice. our countries convene annually in this forum. ever since the united nations was established, in order to reflect on the achievements set out in this charter. we have made many achievements. and many challenges remain, such as the reform of the united nations, ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, reduction of poverty, ignorance, disease, war

and conflict, fighting terrorism and organized crime, the protection of the environment, achieving sustainable development, a respect for human rights, and mainly the rights of women, and ensuring the rule of law, fighting against racism, hatred, and intolerance. mr. president, libya its affiliation to africa, the importance of shifting relations with africa and the world, ones which were based in the past on personal choices and extortion. we want them to be relations based on a firm basis for the interest of all the people. the new libya disassociates itself from the past and extends its hand in freedom and friendship to initiate new relations built on mutual respect and cooperation. in conclusion, let me wish the session full success in solving

the issues on our agenda. i express the hope that the spirit of solidarity and cooperation will prevail. thank you and may god's blessings be upon you. [applause] >> on behalf of the general assembly, i wish to thank the president of the general national congress of libya for the statement he just made. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow, including homeland's security secretary

janet napolitano on cyber security. that is on c-span 2 at 8:00 a.m. season -- eastern. also, a conference on counterfeit prescription drugs. here on c-span, the president of yemen speaks at the woodrow wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. security is a major concern in yemen. >> i was always shocked, as i think anybody who's spent a lot of time around campaigns is, most of them could not explain why they are doing what they're doing. how did you know that and why the do that, and at some point,

they did it because they always did it that waynd based on rules that were not based in research. i went around campaigns without -- with a lot of skepticism on the way people were spending money and time and resources. as i learned about people starving in academia who are doing field experiments, with them being adopted by people in the political world and learned more about all of the innovations and data and targeting, basically revolutionized campaigns in the last decade, this was a major generational shift. in addition to all of these new forms of research -- reforms about how candidates operate -- campaigns operate, new, empirical, movements. >> more with the victory lap -- booktv.oth tv's

>> the race for california senate district house feed is a rematch between dan lungren and ami bera. lungren one two years ago. this race is rated a toss up. our coverage of this hour-long debate is courtesy of news 10 in sacramento. >> hello, and welcome to what should be an interesting conversation about issues the matter to sacramento and the nation. i am the moderator of this debate. >> this is in the third district, redrawn into a more compact seventh district, but what has not changed are the two men who want to represent it. dan lundgren has represented

this region since 2005. he represented congress in 1980's and served eight years as attorney general. the democrat has never held political office. he is a physician who served as chief medical officer and is a professor at uc-davis. these two squared off in 2010. there are five people on the ballots. this year there are only two. this is the most closely watched in the nation. >> we are joined by dan lundgren. thanks for being with us today. i want to introduce my colleagues from the other news organization sponsoring the debate. we are also joined by a small studio audience. i am asking you folks if you will keep your reaction to

yourselves. you are welcome to offer a clause in the end, but otherwise, it is all about the guys -- to offer applause at the end, but otherwise it is all about the candidates. each candidate will have a closing statement at the end of the debate. the candidates will have 90 seconds to answer questions. opponents will have 60 seconds for rebuttal. we will try to keep to the time, and i am sure that will work out well. most of my journalists have not seen these questions in advance. some of the questions are coming from the seventh congressional

district, which were submitted to each news organizations. each candidate is going to have the chance to ask their opponents a question of his own choosing. the order was determined by a coin toss, and dan lundgren won the coin toss, so we will begin with the opening statement. your opening statement. good >> i want to thank the moderator's for putting this on. thank you for joining us, and congressman, i want to thank you for joining this debate. i believe in america. i am a product of that american dream.

and my parents came here with a little more of that dream. we have lived most of our adult life here, and that is where we have raised our daughter, and this is a great community, and what we have seen is things have been changing a little bit. we have been volunteering are around this community. three weeks ago we were working in one of the free clinics, and we noticed every patient we have seen was someone who had been laid off. these were folks looking for work, and they were struggling to get the necessary care. did congress failed to create enough jobs to get this community working again. i believe in the american dream, and i am running for congress because we have to make sure every child has access to that dream the same way i did.

>> congressman, your opening statements. on 9-11, i happen to be in washington, d.c. i passed over the bridge an hour and a half before it was hit. i lost a friend that day on that plane. i lost a law partner, and one of the gunman who had grown up with my children, and their family went to church with us -- was lost in one of the twin towers.

it got hit directly. that changed my life. that changed american directly, but i've found if i had the opportunity to go into public service -- icloud if i had the opportunity to go into public service i would, to do what is necessary to make sure those who attacked us do not succeed.

we could use the tools necessary to protect us and at the same time, not allow them to defeat us for having us give up civil liberties. good i have been doing that every single day. i work on the issue of jobs, taxes, spending. the reason i went back to congress is to continue to work to protect the american people against those who would destroy our way of life, and they are still there. good >> let's begin the questions. a reminder of the rules for each survey. the first question comes from marianne of public radio. >> comcast announced hundreds of job cuts in our area. you talk about jobs. he said congress failed to create enough jobs. when you solicited questions, the overriding issue was job creation. people want you to be very specific, so can you give us a concrete example of how you

create jobs? >> there is no greater issue in our region. we are facing close to a 11% unemployment. we found out comcast is going to lose up to 300 jobs. they are threatening to lose jobs. we lost our fortune 500 company. we have to start bringing business to this region, and we can do that. i talked to small business owners. they are ready to start hiring again. the problem they have is getting access to loans. we need a tax policy that will work not only in sacramento but in america. we need to close the loophole that allows companies to shift new jobs overseas. let's pass an infrastructure we have levees then need lots of work. of we have thousands of construction workers out of work. if we can tax that, we can start putting people back to work. i am a product of public schools.

investment in education long- term is an investment in jobs. our children have to be able to compete in the 21st century, so this is not about building jobs. this is about bringing those companies here and building on the assets. we can do it, but we have to work to do that. >> what about jobs and being specific about jobs? >> congress does not create jobs. congress can prohibit or promote in the private sector, a predominantly small business, so i have spent a good deal of time talking to people in small

business. one thing they find is the rash of lawsuits. i have a law that would change that as opposed to litigation. secondly, if you speak to small business people, they are talking about the uncertainty created by taxes coming forward on january 1. i support and now that we have not allowed those taxes to go up. now president obama said we ought to extend those tax cuts. we need to do it once again. regulatory reform, i have had a number of bills on which i have voted that have gone to the senate. we need senators to our. >> the second question comes from me, and it is for you. your party's candidate for

governor mitt romney has been trying to explain a lot what he meant at a florida fund-raiser when he said there are 47% of americans who believe they are victims and believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, but they are entitled to health care, food, and housing. is that how you see them? >> sure, i think he made a major mistake in saying people want to be victims. he pointed out there are 49% of the people that do not pay income taxes. there are different categories. some do not because they are retired. i would not call them and victimized. others have a low income and do not qualify for paying taxes on the federal level. what i have supported all along is tax reform that will require people working and making real money to pay taxes. our tax system is just right with all kinds of exceptions. i have supported legislation, voted for legislation on the

floor. good the budget specifically talks about tax reform, which would expand the base, expand the tax base, eliminating any loopholes, and requiring businesses and individuals to pay their fair share. the problem is we need more taxpayers, not morning in taxes. that is how you are going to increase the government's ability to function we need to attack the spending that is out of control on the federal level. >> does that mean and you would raise taxes? >> i need more people at higher

income levels. we do not need these high tax rates if we would eliminate many exceptions and allow people not to pay taxes. >> americans do not look of themselves as victims, and 47% are not victims. they are people who have worked their whole lives, paid into medicare. they are folks looking for jobs right now. these are folks out what to get back to work. these are folks looking to care for themselves. i agree with a congressman. the way we address this is we broaden the tax base, but you give people jobs so they are part of the system. that is how we have always functioned as society. when i talk about the american dream it is giving people those opportunities so they can climb one or two rungs on the ladder and leave their kids better off. we have got to on president --

to honor the parents and grandparents. we need to be involved in the social security system. >> on to this debate. republicans in this district and other districts are running tv ads hammering you and other democrats for supporting the president's health care overall, specifically what they say is a dangerous cuts to medicare by lowering payments to providers in the medicare advantage program. do you support that aspect of health care overall, and if so, what you say to seniors who are

worried about their health care? >> the congressmen and his supporters have been saying democrats want to cut over $700 billion from medicare to reagan -- from medicare. you know that is not true. you voted for the same thing yourself twice. the $700 billion never leaves medicare. it stays there. the sacramento bee has looked at this and said that is

entirely false. congressman, you know the truth. you voted for this twice. we have to get serious about medicare. as a doctor, i have sat with people as they have to decide between one medication and the other when they needed both and could not afford both. let's get rid of fraud. let's negotiate on a fair playing field. let's make this about patients. let's practice prevention. let's prevent a heart attack. let's diagnose cancer early so we can save a life. that is sorry to cut costs -- that is going to cut costs.

let's make it about taking care of patients. those are cuts in payments to helping insurance companies, and you know better than that because you voted for the same thing twice. >> just because you say something is true does not make it true. look at the chief auditor for the medicare system. they ask whether there are cuts. they said yes. they admitted they are counted twice, once to help the survivability of the trust fund and then to pay for the additional programs under medicare.

you cannot double count, even if you are a doctor. it takes it out of medicare. it specifically takes it out of medicare, and we have one of the highest divisions of senior citizens who opted for medicare advantage in the entire country common and under the formula that he supports, the seniors in this district will suffer a larger cuts than those in florida, a perverse nonsense as a result of the fact of we have lower costs per patient than they have in florida. i am proud i voted for it, and will get the testimony to that

state's you are absolutely wrong in what you just said. -- the testimony that stayed you are absolutely wrong in what you just said. >> we have some consistency, but this is an issue. the republican plan targets the same amount of money. that is one of the problems we have. we are talking about the same pot of money. >> we are not. any cut stay in the system as proposed by the president, as admitted under oath in testimony to the congress. they take that money out and use it for new programs to establish -- established under the president's program, so it

actually endangers medicare. it does not leave the money for that purpose. that is the statement under oath. we will make that available. >> are broke a format. the you want to speak briefly and now? >> let's look at what the congressman supports. he supports a budget that would privatize medicare, but would leave seniors without unnecessary care, breaking a promise we made over a generation. it would privatize it and add thousands of dollars in costs to medicare. >> we can talk about this some

more. >> this is a pretty important issue. it is not a voucher. it is a support program. it was first presented as a bipartisan proposal under the clinton administration. it is not a voucher. it is a premium support program, and it is a pattern under the health care program for millions of americans. >> it does not cover the cost of care seniors need. we have to put our patients first. >> something tells me we do not agree, which means we will get a chance to hear from voters. let me get to a couple of questions. this is for you, congressman lundgren, and it comes from

rancho cordova global warming, is this an issue that concerns you? why? what steps would you take to minimize the impact to the country? she means water supply, flooding common and raider management, and drought now. >> there is no question there is climate change. the question is is it caused by human activity. it seems we ought to take reasonable steps but not steps that would take us at a disadvantageous position economically where we will have less jobs. there are people who support the things that would destroy jobs, and we have an example of that in the current administration that i believe is supported by my opponents to try to basically ruined the coal industry in the united states, and losing tens of thousands of jobs instead of pursuing the cleanest technology in the area of:. -- of coal. my record is pretty good. good we got rid of the program that gave us the equivalent of one car a year. it produces enough energy to light 250 homes a year. in reduces that which goes to landfills by 5,000 tons, and the number of car equivalent is almost 900. that is a pretty good record in just one year. good >> you are suggesting the

global warming change we are seeing may not because by man- made sources of? >> my suggestion is we do not know to what extent is and what extent it will have on the united states. i believe it makes good common sense to try to reduce carbon emissions were possible. >> you want to talk about climate change? >> talk to a farmer in the midwest right now, but climate is changing. talk to the folks in new orleans. we have seen these extremes. we can go about this in a smart way that creates jobs. we should never doubt american ingenuity when we put our mind to something. your there is no reason we cannot move forward and become an energy independent country. this is a national security issue as well. we need to start producing our own energy at home and putting folks to work. the question is how does it affect us at home. we defend the region we depend on our agricultural segment at home. our snowcaps are melting.

that is our biggest reservoir, so we have got to address this, and we can debate what causes it, but the fact is the longer we wait, the worse it is getting. >> another question. >> this one comes to us from citrus heights. she asks, how would you propose to work across the aisle to ameliorate the disastrous secret station -- sequestration in this country over the fiscal cliff? >> the first thing we need to do is roll up our sleeves and take these issues seriously. congress has a fiscal cliff over their head, and they chose to go on recess for six weeks. that is unconscionable. we have to set aside differences. we have to find common ground. as democrats and republicans, we have a lot more in common than what separates us. we all want our kids to succeed. right now, the political parties are getting in their way. we have to get back to that context where it is not about political party, but about taking care people and moving forward. here is how we do that cared leadership is not about -- hear is how we do that. leadership is not about blame. it is about rolling up your sleeves, locking yourself in a room and leading by example. congress has not been able to come up with a budget in over 2000 days. that is ridiculous. that is where this has to start. let's come up with a budget. there is a no budget to-no pay legislation that says, if congress does not do its job and pass irresponsible budget, they don't get paid. that is a step in the right direction paired i will co- sponsor that legislation which is bipartisan and hold congress responsible for doing their core job, which is passing a budget which they have not done in 2008. >> your being critical about the current congress. give us an issue that you would be willing to compromise on. >> i have said that i think

there are many things. no child left behind is not the right direction for education. we can find those issues where i am willing to stand against my party. so let's work together. >> can you work with democrats on the sequestration if you return to washington? >> i have worked with democrats my entire life. all you have to do is look at my record, whether it is immigration, criminal justice or things like gun laws. i have worked across the aisle. as a matter of fact, if you check with members on the other side of the aisle, they come to me to see if they can get some support. ron wyden came to me before he went to vice-presidential nominee paul ryan in terms of his approach. unfortunately, i was totally involved on some issues dealing with anti-terrorism so i could not to deal with the specific one. but i probably have as many piece of red -- of legislation that is bipartisan and any member of congress. the idea of no budget/no pay, how about the idea of new budget/no job. i put my budget on print and have not seen any budget that you put on line. dianne feinstein has not voted for a budget in the last 2000 days. >> did you vote for the budgets during the democrat rain in the house? >> i voted for the alternatives. >> this one is for dan lundgren. >> let's go back to health care. the affordable care act, which to support the repeal? california and other states are already moving forward with a lot of the provisions, including the health benefit exchange, the online insurance marketplace. how should the government handle states like california who are moving in this direction, getting people lined up for medicaid expansion with the expectation that the money will be there? >> we have to be very honest with people we cannot afford

obamacare. it will bury us in debt. when you have extensions in the thousands, it might suggest to you that maybe this does not make sense. when you have testimony before the relevant committees in congress, providers will actually reach a cliff so you will have made the munition, a lessening of the number of doctors, the number of hospitals, the number of medical systems that can treat people. i have suggested that we not only repeal obamacare, but replace it with other things. i co-sponsored hr 6283 with dr. burgess of texas. that would create incentives for states to create a high risk pool to make sure that no one is denied access to quality care. i have worked on a number of other different approaches, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, that will increase tremendously the number of opportunities and varieties of coverage that is out there. if you look at what is contained in our budget with respect to actual reform of the

system, you will see that people can stay in what they have now or have greater choices down the line with an element of competition that will help drive costs down. >> what i think the best thing for the audiences to tell us is what is wrong from the republican plan from your eyes. >> i have been consistent. the affordable care at is not the direction i would have gone. as a physician, as someone who has dealt with in these issues my whole adult life and professional life, we have to do with the cost of care could but the only way you do that is by taking on the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry and making sure that it is about patients.

their plan does not do that. it continues to allow health insurance companies to make those decisions. we need to take health care and put it in the hands of our patients. he touched on any number of issues. there is no way for us to get our economy going until we have addressed the cost of health care. when i talk to small businesses and large corporations, after peril, their biggest item is the cost of benefits -- after payroll, their biggest item is the cost of benefits. that has to be priority number one camp that is why i disagreed with the president's approach.

he should have made economic case for why we need to get a handle of health care costs. >> you have talked about wasteful spending in washington. you have issued statements about that night could be mentioned loopholes. those are difficult things to define for some people. give me one example of wasteful spending and a loophole. >> wasteful spending is the 30 cents on every health care dollar that goes to the health insurance industry that has nothing to do with patient care. that is wasteful spending. wasteful spending is the fact

that the federal government is prohibited from negotiating on pharmaceutical pricing. the bush drug benefit forces to negotiate for the best price. that is and $80 billion giveaway. >> what is a loophole? >> a loophole allows companies to ship jobs overseas. it is not fair trade. it is moving jobs overseas and leaving dollars over there as opposed to closing a loophole that allows us to accept those companies in america. >> congressman lundgren, which

is a loophole to you, sir? >> i will say that waste is sold under -- is solyndra. we ought to use our common sense when we look at these programs instead of throwing money to the wind. a loophole, corn ethanol. it has been the largest boondoggle since i have been in congress. we finally got rid of the subsidy, but there is still a tariff on ethanol made from other substances coming into the united states. that is not only an improper loophole, but it also happens to be immoral because it has as a direct impact on a particular food stuff that is utilized as a stable in diets around the

world. i cannot see why -- there's no common sense to it. it does not make sense from the standpoint of taxpayers. and it is immoral to respect with the food needs of people around the world. >> congressman, iran says they're not developing a nuclear bomb in but reports as recently as last month show that they are stepping up their nuclear enrichment activities. just today, president obama told the u.n. that the iran situation is not a challenge and it can be contained.

tell me, at what point is military involvement necessary? what is airline in the sand. -- what is our line in the sand. >> the fact is, it is happening. our intelligence, israeli intelligence do not differ in my judgment on the surface. the question is how do you analyze that and i think we analyze it in several ways. but the next question is where do you draw the line. i think israel is trying to tell us that we need to draw the line now and i accept drawing the line now present it is unacceptable for iran having a nuclear weapon. but you have to look at what the administration has done. this president points to the failings of israel before pointing to the countries around it that are threatening them. the last thing you should do is show weakness, a divide between your country and its strongest ally. that is what this country has done we are on the brink of a

decision that needs to be made. it is unacceptable. when we say it is unacceptable, we ought to have all options to stop iranian development of a nuclear weapon. some might say that will get us into a conflict. we will be in a conflict one way or the other. and if they have a nuclear weapon, the consequences will be devastating, not only for israel, but the entire middle east and the entire country. >> the congressman has said that the president has been weak on iran. >> the president has introduced diplomacy, but without the threat of military intervention is not real diplomacy. iran has to know that we will never let them acquire nuclear weapons. i'm understand the congressman. i agree with him. that would destabilize the region. that would put israel, one of our closest allies, in harm's way and we have to stand with israel. the greatest threat to destabilization in the middle east is a nuclear-arms iran. we cannot let that happen appeared but we have to let air diplomacy work. it has to be diplomacy with a meaningful and understanding to ahmadinejad that we will invade if we have 2. >> we are now the point in this debate where each candidate will ask the other candidate a

question. these are consistent with the rules we agreed to in the order we're going. >> congressman, recently, you sent out a taxpayer-funded miller saying that you will lead by example. which one of your taxpayer- funded pensions will you use to help us pay off the debt? >> i would have expected a question like that from you. i do not qualify for a pension -- i will try very hard -- secondly, i would just say this. i have worked as hard as any member of congress and trying to control spending. i chair the committee that oversees expenditures of the congress -- of the house of representatives for two years. for two years, i have brought to the floor cuts to the congress, cuts to my budget, cuts to the leadership budget and that is not the easiest thing to do. and cuts to every single committee. i have cut my own committee more than i have cut the other committees. if the whole federal committee -- the whole federal government had cut its budget by 11%, we would be well on our way toward establishing a guide path toward a balanced budget. look at my actions. my actions speak louder than the words. >> leadership is leading by example. your currently taking a full pension from the state of california of more than $50,000 a year at a time in your taking full salary in congress from over one of its any $5,000. we are going broke -- over $175,000. we are going broke in this state. we have to lead by example and

putting ourselves out there. that is why we made the play-we have made. i will not take a pay raise until unemployment is addressed in this region. that is leading by example. i will not take a pension until we have actually secured medicare and social security next-generation. how can we advocate cuts to seniors when we are not willing to tighten our belts as well as leaders. you proposed privatizing social security and giving it away to wall street. that is not the way we need to go. we need to make decisions ourselves and make these decisions. >> doctor, you have just articulated in number of things that the sacramento bee has said are false. evidently, you think it is

appropriate to continue with falsehoods. four years ago, a mutual friend of ours was called by you to go to a luncheon so you could announce to him that you would run and you asked him to give me a message, that he respected my service to the public and that you would run a different campaign. you would not have any personal attacks. you would only talk about the

issues. subsequent to that, i have received from your personal attacks, questioning my integrity, questioning my honesty, questioning the sincerity, questioning my motivation. my question for you is this. when you said that to him, were you telling the truth at that time or was it a cynical political ploy? or, as some of your friends have told me, it is that you could not hold up under the

pressure you received from the washington establishment to run a campaign against someone personally instead of the issues? >> this is about personal integrity. this is about stepping up and leading by example. this is about putting your community first. that is the promise i made as a

doctor. and that is the promise i made as a congressman. when we talk about leading by example, it is leading by example. it is by making the sacrifice so your community is better off. it is about working a free clinic and volunteering. when you take a full state of california pension and when you raise your salary by 25% in the last month as attorney general sir you get an extra $11,000, that sets the wrong example. we have to address these. our state is going bankrupt. when you double dip and take a full salary as a congressman and a pension from the state of california, that is exactly the wrong direction. we have to address these issues. those are not personal attacks. those are the facts. it is a fact that you have said you would privatize social security. we can fact check that i am glad you admitted that you voted for the $716 million that you are attacking me on. those are facts. >> i want to remind everyone that we will have closing statements in a few minutes in this debate for the candidates. we still have more questions. >> let's follow-up on the social security issue. congressman, the trust fund will not have enough money to pay out full benefits in a decade under

the current model. changes have been suggested including increasing the retirement age and supporting the payroll tax. what would you do? >> let me just say that we saw an example of how well the doctor would work across the aisle with people. questioning their motivation, misstating the facts, continually misstating the facts that have been shown to be untrue by analysis by "the sacramento bee" does not bode well for someone who wants to work. i was around last time we had to face this. at that time, i worked with those in the congress. we had the grand compromise with ronald reagan and tip o'neill. it did increase incrementally the age of retirement. and the major factor in attempting to try to keep the social security system reliable, that has actually worked for the last quarter of a century. but will we have the courage now to reach across the island talk about those things. it makes it very difficult to have your opponent and his supporters criticize you because you voted to raise the social security age back in 1983. i thought that is what they talked about, the great times of tip o'neill and ronald reagan working together across the aisle. i worked across the aisle. we stabilize the situation appeared and now he criticizes it. how does that it is anywhere closer to solving the problem? one of things -- one of the things that we have to do is make sure that people who are 55 and over are not affected. >> what about his accusation that you want to privatize social security? >> that is untrue. i suggested a portion of what you're particular account to be invested you see fit. here is a reason why appeared everybody -- here is the reason why. everybody talked about how we needed a lock box.

this is the only way you protect it. you give someone an actual amount of money that they can invest as they wish. >> i need to step in so we can keep moving. >> can you imagine what would have happened if folks had moved their money out of social security and into wall street in this recession? we would have had millions of seniors in poverty. social security is a sacred program. we have to address it in the broader context of the debt. we have to understand where the dead came from. it came from two wars that were not funded. it came from tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. it came from billionaires giveaways to wall street, to insurance companies. you voted for those. you voted for a budget twice that will add over $3 trillion to our debt. that is ridiculous. trusting congressman lundgren to address these issues is like trusting in berlin to house sit for you when you go on vacation. >> i want to talk about immigration for a moment. as you know, president barack obama acted by executive order back in june to allow 1.7 million undocumented immigrants who came to the u.s. as children to stay if they meet certain conditions.

did the president to the right thing? >> i would have supported the dream act. these are kids who came here and gives them a chance to become citizens and serve the country they love and to go to college. this is an issue of security. we first have to secure our borders. next, we have to actually take the laws we have and enforce those laws. thirdly, we have to address immigration. we want the best and brightest to come to this country occurred we wanted to get their education. and we want them to build their companies here.

that is what moves our economy forward. >> should we keep all those people here in the united states or send some of them back? >> we should have those who have successfully graduated from college apply for an extension of their leases and over time get a chance to become citizens so they can build their companies here. that is our history. that is our legacy as americans. >> did the president made the right decision? >> -- if he did not, what would you have liked to see different? >> you have to be committed to it. we spent 30 days in the congress that were unsuccessful. i came back the next time and we succeeded in doing it. if this president had wanted to have major immigration reform, he should have done it. there were those of us who were willing to work on it and he did not extend his hand. you have the dream at sitting out there, this thing that he did. six months before the election, i mean, come on, that is pretty cynical. i support things like last week where we voted to get rid of the diversity of exception, a 55,000 visa program that was

originally established by tip o'neill to help the irish get into it has nothing to do with skills that people have. it is a violation of the world wide quota system. >> but let me fair, congressman. would you send people back next >> those who set foot across the border yesterday, what right do they have to be in the united states? we need a program that -- you do not have to put them on a road to citizenship. if you cut in line, there's something wrong, and i have a program i have proposed that has those who have roots in the community that would get a blue card. there would be able to stay in the united states but they would not be on the path to citizenship. there would have to go home and sign-off there, get behind the line like everybody else. >> you issued a statement denouncing comments about "legitimate rape."

but you did co-sponsor a bill that said only "forcible rape pregnancies should be eligible for federal the funded abortions." do you think there are different kinds of rape? does that influence how you vote on whether federal funds can be used for abortion? >> the fact is, the word "forcible" was taken out of it. i went to the major co-sponsors and told them that i would not support that unless they took the word "forcible" out because the language they had without it was the language that it prevailed for 30 years in the congress known as the hyde amendment. it has support in both democratic and republican administrations and has bipartisan support in the house and the senate. it was the law. i told them, you should not

change the language with one word because it would change the state of law. if you're talking about the mistake they made, i was the one who pointed it out. i can tell you it was after went to them that i told them i could not supported that they changed it. rather than changing the law, i worked to make sure we maintain the law that has stood the test of time. >> rate is rape. we don't need to debate what it is. what we do need to do is make sure we protect individual liberties, that we protect a woman's right to choose. as a doctor, the oath i took this to sit with patients and empower them within their faith and with their family circumstances and make their decisions as best as they can carry as a doctor, i do not want the government coming into the exam room and making those decisions for me. i want to empower my patients to make the decisions that make sense within their faith and their families. we don't want the federal

government in the examining room. >> despite some positive news, the struggling housing market continues to be a drag on the sacramento economy. what role should the federal government play in trying to change that? do you support homebuyer tax credits and other incentives or what? >> another area i would criticize the president is not addressing the housing crisis early enough because it is a drag on our economy and we will not start to recover. as i am now they're talking to voters and talking to folks who live in this district, many of them are trying to do the right thing. they are paying their mortgage. but their homes are now under water. they are not asking for forgiveness. they want to sit with the banks and now that interest rates have dropped they would like to refinance their homes. the banks are not doing it. i think it is appropriate for

the federal government to work with banks to start getting them to help homeowners and allowing them to start refinancing their homes. these are folks who do not want to get out of what they are doing grave they want to do the right thing but they need help right now. >> #1, for some people who have been forced upon or had shorts hills, -- short sales, i had a major piece of legislation to make sure that would not happen. i have been told by realtors in our area and first-time home buyers say that they have not had the opportunity to purchase homes because investment companies have come in and bought them out from under them. third, i would just say that there are any number of people in our constituents who have been helped with the banks and to see whether they can be refinanced.

so i do think there is a place for government to play in that. >> what could you do about investors coming in? any ideas? >> i don't know, except maybe exposing the fact that this is undercutting -- i have had realtors say they have a boat to qualify and they have had to make applications on as many as 19 homes and then have investors come in and take them from under them. i don't know if there's anything legally we can do about that. but it is in the best interest of the people in our area.

>> for those first-time homebuyers, folks who want to get in homes, especially veterans, we should be able to work with those individuals to get them access to the loans so they can buy the homes that they need. >> congressman lundgren, actually, both of you -- can you identify for us the most dangerous interests in washington? tell me in your view which group just has too much influence on the goings on at the capitol? >> i don't think you can talk about any particular group. what do you want to do, say that someone cannot petition their grievances to the government? the gallup poll comes out and shows the president behind in it immediately they are attacked

by the executive branch? i don't put people in those categories could i think it is unfair to bring the federal government down on somebody who is trying to present their case. it doesn't matter if they are the wealthiest or the poorest. what does matter is the transparency in terms of lobbying, making sure that everyone knows when it is done, how what does that, under what circumstances it is done and then let the people decide. the first amendment is based on the proposition that the more that is said by more people, all stations of life, the better it is. you need to meet a misguided notion with a better notion. this idea that the fedele government needs to tell us that we think you should not be talking so much, or you are the favored operations and you're a disfavored operation -- i don't want the government involved in that sort of thing.

so i won't even answer your question because it would suggest that i, as a member of congress, will punish someone. >> so there's nothing wrong in washington. >> that is not what i said at all. but you want me to point out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. the fact of the matter is that the rough and tumble in a garment allows people to say what they have to say and then let the people decide -- in government allows people say what they have to say and then let the people the side. >> the citizens united ruling, the unleashing of millions of dollars that will corrupting our democracy, the unleashing of corp. -- i am glad to hear the congressman say he wants transparency. we should know who is donating to these campaigns and funneling dollars in two races. that will undermine our democracy.

that truly is in my mind something that we have to address. we can do it. there is the disclose that that does suggest that we move forward so we at least know who is donating to these ads. i think that is a step in the right direction current congressman, that is in your committee. >> before closing statements, as you may know, california has a plan for a high-speed rail system from san francisco to l.a. and maybe one day to sacramento. it requires congressional money. would you find that program? >> no, i would not fund the program right now. i would invest money in infrastructure. for our region, that would be levees, keeping your families said, but now is not the time for that investment to take place. >> when we had what was supposed to be a debate on state public radio two years ago, you

were for it and you criticized me for not being for the very program that you are now against. so i guess you were for it before you were against it and maybe you will be for it again. >> that would make a nice tv ad. >> you had your turn. >> very briefly. we are coming closer. >> there were favored groups and disfavored groups. that is where the government does and does what i believe it is against the spirit and the letter of the first amendment. >> i know you want to say it, but you better sit quick. but the voters were for high- speed rail. this is not the time for it. >> now they have the opportunity to issue closing statements. by the order of the coin toss, doctor, you have the first

closing statement. >> i want to thank the moderator's and those joining us on television. four years ago, we faced an unprecedented economic situation that took us into the great recession. now we face political dysfunction that threatens to take us back there. you have heard two different visions. he is part of what got us into this mess. he put forth the same policies that got us into this mess kennedy-esque taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in wall street and big oil companies -- who do you think he will work for? he has voted on a budget twice that would add over $3 trillion in debt that will crush our kids. i am a doctor. the oath i took was to make my patients first. we have to make sure that every child has the american dream that i am a product of.

here is my promise to you. i pledge not to take any salary until unemployment in sacramento is below 5%. i promise not to take a pension until we have secured social security and medicare for the next generation and our seniors. and i will co-sponsor the legislation no budget/no pay. that is my pledge to you. by putting people first, we can restore the american dream. i would be honored to have your support and vote on november 6. thank you. >> now we go to the closing statement of the incumbent congressman lundgren. >> we face serious problems in this country. that is why i am in congress, to face those challenges. i have voted for budgets. i have put my name on the line with respect to what needs to be done to put this country back on a fiscal path.

thoseonent's party and who support my opponent disagree. they want us to continue on a path of more spending and more taxation. if you listen to what my opponent says, he is for the status quo on steroids. i am opposing that. i am working against that could not just against it, i have a vision of the future for america. it comes out of the promise of america, the idea that you can be the best that you possibly can be with god's talents, not encumbered by a government that tells you they know better. not a government answers all situation, where jobs are created by the federal government, where every answer

is given to you, where every obligation is imposed on you. but rather in a country that is in the spirit of america, the spirit of the foundation of america, that understanding that a robust government does not interfere with the people. i have faith in the people. i have always had faith in the people. and i think i have an obligation and you have an obligation to give to our children and our grandchildren the same greatness in america that our parents gave us. >> i want to thank both candidates for this. we talked about a lot of issues. there are a lot of issues for the voters as they go to the polls. i want to thank you. you can continue to follow information online at new10.net. the most important thing for you in the seventh congressional district is to get out and vote. election day is november 6. your vote does matter. thank you for watching. [applause] [captioning performed by naonal captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the first thing in our article is getting medicare costs under control is our number one priority and it is the most untouchable thing. that will cause more trouble than any other problem we have at this point. getting medicare costs under control is the number one thing. >> you say we would also surcharges' smokers and the obese for their medicare coverage. where did that idea come from? >> i am the person that put it in the memo. i did not have to fight very hard for it.

something i ran in the washington post, where instead of calling people "morbidly obese," i called them "mega- fatties." i was called in sensitive. i probably am. somebody has to pay for it. there should be penalties. i am not really a democrat, but you have to be irresponsible, to some extent, for your personal behavior. if someone is going to pay for it. >> quite right. we are not the only ones making arguments like this. there have been other bipartisan commission's. the task force that was led by allen and peter, with regards to

medicare, they said we needed to do something about the obese and smokers. they had a proposal more complicated than ours for restricting spending. these are difficult decisions but we are going to have to face them. >> fixing the economy. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> see the first of the presidential debates next wednesday on c-span. watch and engage. in a few moments, the federalist society previews the upcoming tour of the supreme court. in a little more than 1.5 hours, the role of child care as a campaign issue in the presidential campaign. after that, a debate between candidates for senate in nevada. on tomorrows "washington journal," the role of the

economy and the financial industry in the presidential campaign. and we will talk about medical errors in hospitals. doctors operate on the wrong person or wrong body part as many as 40 times per week. also a discussion on workplace safety and occupational hazards. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. several live events to tell you about tomorrow, including homer and security secretary janet napolitano on private security. she told members of congress that the threat of a cyber terrorism needs immediate congressional attention. that is on c-span 2 at 8:00 a.m. eastern. also, a conference on counterfeit prescription drugs.

speakers include the head of the food and drug administration and the ceo of the pharmaceutical company's lobbying groups. the president of yemen will speak at the woodrow wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern. security is a major concern in yemen. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries, i will initiate something i call " prosperity tax." working with the private sector. it will identify the barriers to entrepreneurialism in developing nations and in exchange for removing those barriers, developing nations will receive u.s. assistance packages focused on developing the institutions of liberty, the rule law, and property rights. >> we believe that freedom and

self-determination are not unique to our culture. these are not simply american or western values. they are universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, i am convinced that ultimately the government of the people, by the people, and for the people is more likely to bring about the prosperity and individual opportunity that serves as a basis of peace for our world. >> wednesday, october 3, mitt romney and president obama meet in their first presidential debate. watch and engage on c-span, including our live review at 7:00 p.m. eastern. after the debate, your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> the supreme court's new term

begins on monday. some of those -- some of the cases that will come before the high court. this is 1.5 hours. >> good afternoon. i am doug cox. on behalf of the federal society, well -- welcome to our september luncheon. today's event is sponsored by the society practice groups, the d.c. lawyers chapter, and the fact of the division. our program today is a little bit different from the regular lunches that take place in chinatown. there is no kung po on the menu.

some things are more important than chinese food, no matter how yummy. the new supreme court term promises to be one of those very important things. we have pulled together an all- star panel of experts to give us their thoughts and insights. >> our moderator today is pete williams. he is well known for being one of the first journalists to get the reporting right on that long-ago december evening when the decision came down in bush vs. gore. we are grateful to him for leading the discussion today. >> each of our panelists has a set of cases to produce. "playboy" magazine has just declared the university of virginia as the top party school. >> i was in the library the whole time.

>> into 2006 he became the first lawyer to fill a position, assistant attorney general, for -- and is now in private practice. ken, please. >> i always thought it was dangerous to be on a panel that starts with a reference to "playboy." i have been asked about three cases, and national security case, and then other cases. clapper vs. amnesty international, a standing case related to a challenge of the fisa amendments act. fisa was passed in 2008, an amendment of the foreign intelligence surveillance act

that was passed in 1978. you have to understand the merits of little bit. >> for those watching on c-span, what is standing? >> whether a party has a right to appear in court and challenge the statutes. the plaintiffs are attorneys, human rights activists, and others who are in regular contact with people overseas, people who might be the subject of electronic surveillance by the federal government, and they are challenging the law that allows this because they are concerned their

communications will be picked up. they claim they have standing to challenge the law, their communications will get picked up, and in the course of that surveillance, they have the right to challenge that in court. that is the standing issue. to get to the merits, fisa passed in 1978, and in the aftermath about abuses, it set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purposes. this is a way of making sure the court -- it had a check and a role in reviewing the efforts to do this wiretapping, which had been abused when there had not been a court. the problem with the statute designed in 1978 is congress tried to limit its focus on

communications inside the united states. it was the way that did not require going to the court. the problem is that in defining the parameters of what communications -- surveillance required court approval. the statute referred to the technology at the time, those communications that were wired, radioed, or satellite technology. since 1978 we have seen a dramatic change of the technology of communications, particularly fiber optic cable, which has changed the court order the government faces when they try to get this case in electronic surveillance. the result is that leading up to 9/11 there are many instances where the government would have to go to get an order from the fisa court before they could wiretap communications

overseas. that was not the intent of fisa originally. the amendment of 2008 was meant to address that problem. what it did was say that if the government is trying to surveil somebody overseas and they have a reasonable basis to believe that person is overseas and not in the united states, they do not have to go to the court for a particular provision. that was what was different about the 2008 statute, because it allowed the government to go forward with communications surveillance for a number of people without having to get special permission for each and every communication. the problem is that for people like the plaintiffs in this case, that meant their communications might get swept up as well, even though they were in the united states by

merit of communicating with somebody out there. the merits will be fought out someday, but a couple questions here as to whether or not there is a foreign intelligence exception to the requirement, and the fisa court found that there is. the supreme court has not ruled on that, whether this communication, whether it is reasonable, or if it has not satisfied the requirement, if it is reasonable. the issue is one of standing. the plaintiffs say they have standing because they are being incidentally wiretapped because they are communicating with people overseas. they are having to travel to meet these people in person, like their clients who are overseas, to avoid being intercepted. therefore, they are spending money having to travel, and it is because of their concern of what they say to their clients might get picked up. that is the injury they claim

they have. the government says that injury is illusory. it is no different than maybe an attorney for a mafia crime family who will challenge the criminal wiretaps statute because of the concern of the mafia clans might be picked up in wiretaps. you have no right to challenge an otherwise valid communication by electronic surveillance because you might incidentally get collected. the government says there is the standing, no injuries that they can cite that they would to go to court. the stakes are the following -- one, if standing is found and the court case goes forward, that would undermine a valuable collection effort.

the fisa amendments act is up for reauthorization this year, and the attorney general has filed a letter saying it is enormously important in the effort against terrorists and other foreign threats. a second concern is that if they find standing in this case, that would probably lead to other challenges by people who have lesser injuries to be able to cite that would mean that more cases would come into court where intelligence programs are being challenged, there would be secrets about those intelligence programs, and that would undermine national security. the last issue and the most global in import is if standing is found in this case, it is more likely that a similar case would be brought to the court and more likely that judges as opposed to legislatures or the executive branch would regulate

these policy issues about compliance that should be drawn around intelligence programs. that would be a shift in the separation of powers and the thing that would be on the forefront of the minds of the justices when they decide this. that is the national security case. another case is bailey vs. united states. the question is the extent of the ruling in 1981, called michigan vs. summers, that says if law enforcement agents find occupants at any premises, they can detain the occupants while they execute the search warrant. the police followed that person some distance and stopped that person away from the premises. in this case what happened is you had a defendant -- an

informant come forward and say there was drug dealing at a certain location, police got a search warrant, they surveiled the house, saw a man fitting the description of the person the informant had said was a drug dealer operating out of the location. that man left with another man, got in a car, and drove away. the police followed them and stopped them. the police brought him back, and the search had been conducted, and officers had found guns and drugs in the location, and they arrested him. the evidence seized in the house -- he claimed he had been

stopped illegally. the argument in short is the following -- they looked at the rationale for the opinion and a justification cited there for the police have the authority to detain people on the location of the search warrant, and those are a danger to police, keeping people who are on the premises from distracting the police while they're doing a search, and keeping people from fleeing. they said we had driven away. you did not have to worry about flight because we did not even know the search warrant was happening. the government policy response is in this day and age everybody has a cell phone, could have gotten a text, gotten a gun out, and taken on the police officer. there is the same concern about disrupting the search because they could have come back and

gotten in the way of the search. the government is advocating that so long as they stop the person as soon as reasonably practicable, the rule of summers applies. the significance is what the government is proposing is a further extension of the ability to detain somebody incident to a search warrant. just as we have seen in the reverse through the years, there has been an expansion of the right to search. seeing the same thing in this area. a footnote, this might be a pyrrhic victory for the defense if they win because even if they win with the summers issue, the government can still argue that it was a legitimate, they

had a reasonable suspicion, and, therefore the evidence obtained could still be admissible. i was asked to talk about another case which is a case -- >> why don't you take a minute and a half? >> maryland vs. king, and the question is here to the liberty of the state and federal laws that allow for the collection of swabs of cells from the insides of mouths of people who have been arrested.

those local elections before the revolution were similar in

the way they cast the issue as being one in which there is a status of british citizenship and american citizenship and there's a gap between the two and the gap must be closed. if i were a candidate, i would not be successfully elected because my platform would be to close the civil gap. all was in this room being somewhat government professionals know that budgets are not really about money. they are about civil commitment. but it's art architects of the civil commitment we have made to each other as citizens over many generations. the way these commitments from everything from national security to air traffic control, all of these accumulated year after year slowly and were reformed and shaped in budget

legislation. people came to trust these commitments. they ship their lives, their businesses, their dam it plans about this commitment. now we discover these -- architecture is not sustainable. what is in this is another statement. but we say there is a budget crisis, we are not saying there is a lack of money. the fabric of civil commitments the whole society together is being torn apart. people no longer know how how they relate to each other. business people know longer know whether contracts can be enforced, spending is being cut back and courts are operating more slowly, can you get a contract enforced? the relationship to civil

commitment is fragmenting. uncertainty is rising. trust is falling. economic growth is slowing. unemployment is rising. that is where we are. in this, there is a civil crisis. something in it in which there is a group of individuals who are budget advantage. and then those of our budget disadvantage. -- who are budget disadvantaged. just as there was a gap between free and slave and to the 1850's, we had to fight a bloody civil war to close that gap. but just as there was a gap between women and men in voting and it took 40 years and

ultimately a woman starving herself in a jail not far from here to close that gap at the beginning of world war 1. just as there was a deputy majority and minority and access to education and public facilities, that gap too was closed but it took it in there every case aggressive action. and sometimes violent action to close those civil gaps. who are the budget advantaged in this story? the gap is between a group of people or families whose circumstances are paid for but deficits that are burdens on all other families and future children buried -- future children. convince it is not actually an economic problem

all but it is deeper structure is that it is a civil rights problem. it is wrong. probably constitutionally, to greet a deficit structure which results in a tax necessity which reached out and grab the labor of future children without representation. that is a form of fiscal slavery to read you have reached out and grab their labor to spend it now. who are the but to the advantage? obviously everyone who are -- who benefits from government services and does not so to speak paid their fair share. it might be said there states the receive more than their fair share of government benefits. so there is a benefit by geography. there is one by sector of the

economy. he might be -- you might be -- age and income are frequently referred to. they represent degette. that is why it is so difficult for us to close it -- they represent the gap. that is why it is difficult for us to close is carried if i were also a candidate, i want to talk about the solution to the civil problem be to invest in kids. it is difficult to solve this problem without an economy that is doing better. one of the great disappointments to me, i can lay it on my own

shoulders, when the auto industry ran into trouble, it got $80 billion. in the financial industry, when iran into trouble, it got $800 billion in the -- three months. how big is a sector that produces young adults? can you imagine an economy without young adults? if he were to expand into this economy is the sector that produces young adults, you know who produces your car or manages your checking account. that is the financial sector. you never produces the food on a table. the sector that produces young adults is a huge human capital sector. finance a 7.5%.

how big is a young adult human capital sector? simplify%. -- 10.5%. it is the largest sector in the economy. as we just heard, it is labor intensive. he spent money in that sector and he will create jobs. if you cannot imagines an economy without a young adults, the nina you have to invest in them. all of you know the returns on investing in kids. i will not go back through that. but i will say as the we as a community have failed. i take this as a burden on myself. we as a community have failed. to communicate to politicians that the human capital sector is as big as it is and we of this

sector have not understood that if you deprive a child early and its life of adequate the attrition -- nutrition, you are denying its ability under the constitution. that is as great a civil-rights violation as any we've talked about. we failed to do that. and we failed to talk about the budget as a civil crisis, not a budget crisis. how can we change that? one thing to do -- we have to get much more aggressive. we have to put in state capitols 5000 people who are

involved in raising kids on top, on steps, and saying to members of state legislators you will vote for kids or you will not be in office. it the next guy does not vote for kids, we will kick about two. if you do not think it can be done, think about the basic numbers. every congressional bishop has about 600,000 people. -- district has about six and a thousand people. -- 600,000 people. 50,000 can turn every single person for the race of pop -- house of representatives in this country. the question is whether this committee is prepared to get militant. is it prepared to do what the

founders of the country did? are we prepared to do was done what women 1860's, were dealing -- doing in the early 1900's? >> we have a paper out there. we should take the script and put it up and make it available. we are doing that here. i'm grateful for that. let's build on that. rob has given a most eloquent case of changing how we think about our education and our national priorities as they relate to financing towards our human capital producers and the next generation carried maybe we can link the early years of education to the broader discussions on education reform going on in our country and

which are going on in the election. both candidates are talking about education. the more often as it relates to affordable college. did not mention the early learning and child care as much as we would like but let's put some of these issues in " the context of some of the things they have talked about. how does early learning fit into k-12 reform and how should it? >> following the amazing and deep, as we just heard, in of the remarks are practical and pragmatic. the first one to mention how important it is to be thinking about quality and access in investment and understanding this as part of the social contract.

we have a paper out of the next social contract for the primary years which will and vision what education and learning opportunities unlike for young people and their families. that is certainly the place to start and a talking about this. as i was thinking about to to connect with the presidential candidates should be saying about child-care = early learning and what they're not saying, i was going straight to the obvious connections and and our education debates and how much we need to start connecting these issues to what we are ready talking about in terms of schools and investing. the first thing i want to make clear -- i think out there on

the wider world, the public is not as recognized. chucker programs -- child care programs are early learning programs treat children from their earliest ages are learning and developing social, cognitive, physical skills. all that is happening. they are also in an environment that gives them a space to learn how to burnt. that is the primary think we as human beings need to be able to teach our young. to learn how to young -- how to learn.

once we know that, we have to break out of the mindset that education starts at age 6. we have to break out of that and recognize the huge opportunity that is latent in these early learning settings. to develop our next generation. to develop the strongest and as we want in our schools and those adults better and the bidding and invented jobs that are more than just their way to work. i take both the lead monday and president obama campaign are missing an opportunity to make this connection -- i think botht ney and president obama campaigns are missing an

opportunity to make this connection. until we can recognize how far behind we are in investing in those children and their families, i think we cannot just stop at kindergarten tree we have done a lot of work to focus on to the garden and how are we thinking about the new development science research as relates to first, second, third grade in all the way up to young adulthood. are we understand their capacity to learn and army harnessing that? our would like to give three examples of where icing canada to well to be making a stronger case and are not. where when i hear the debates, i say they miss it again.

how could they not make this connection? the first one for me -- improving conditions and job opportunities for the middle class. when candidates are talking about middle-class families, they have in their mind a picture of a family with children. who is taking care of those children with their parents are working? arledge child-care professionals with them able to provide those learning opportunities in terms of of lawmen them to explore their world -- of allowing them to explore their world, helping them build upon a curiosity. do they have the training they need to do that? are the introducing them to art, music, movement, math skills, storytelling, and the other opportunities that enable them to develop their language and ability to express themselves?

are -elected - our elected officials need to recognize that some of children in this country are not necessarily getting those opportunities. the only way to fix some of our larger education problems is to be looking at what those kids are experiencing in those first five and six years. supporting middle-class families and jobs for middle-class families have to include this conversation. in education, there is a lot of conversation around turnaround schools and teacher quality. that is a big part of the education debate in this country. the obama administration has focused on fixing failing schools and there has been a laser focus on effectiveness in treating -- teaching. the mitt romney campaign has

little interest in proving schools -- in improving schools as well. providing vouchers for parents. neither side is recognizing those reforms will be far less successful of children are given a poor foundation in the first place. if kids are growing up in an popper's conditions and have little access to the rich, curiosity driven conversations they need in those young couriers, those reforms will not go anywhere. until we start getting serious about the problem we're talking about today. schools will put up lots of resources. we really need children to be of enormous with theirs focus of flexible thinking, deeper background knowledge in multiple subject matters and the way

they're integrated into today's world. wouldn't it be smarter as thinking of them as education dollars? our investment as a country, wouldn't it be smarter to use those investments to be fought loading? to make sure that we are setting children up to succeed in the first place jarrett the third one is family values. st. think -- strengthening family life. this comes up a lot. i do not doubt at all that had its want to make sure feliz are supported but we need to have a serious question about how to do that with families with young kids. there was a comment made by mitt

romney on nbc this week. let's get serious about talking rock family paid leave policy. but it really serious about what early learning environments can do to help parents. so they do not feel like it will not be available to them. those of the three pieces i wanted to put out there. i think we're missing a big opportunity to connect early chaka dedication with the big issues affecting our country, with education innovation issues. i'm curious to see in the next couple months of vacant store

the pot the bit and get more of the conversation going on this. >> thank you so much. we turned towards our audience. i may start by saying if there is any immediate response or quantum among the panel that you want to jump in on. maybe we should go down and the militant right now . but we have a little bit of time. we will go wrong with the microphone. ask a single brief question so we have a time for folks to respond. >> i agree with everything that was just said. i do agree and which we had settled on quality and investment 20 years ago when we had a good opportunity to do that. i say that because one of the issues that kids are facing i would love to your response from is how to win now make

investments in chao care when u.s. birthrates are at an all- time low? women have the elderly being the largest segment over 50, of u.s. population growth. is it more that we have a chao care crisis or do we have a care crisis? those same families we're talking about who have young kids are also faced with now caring for their parents. i think we have a care giving crisis and i will love to hear a response to that. >> that is a very penetrating question. and a good one. it will start with helen. >> it may be that the birth

rates declining 01 in fort children under six is poor. we have this wrong number of young children who are for and we know their mothers have to work because we know poverty in young children is extremely damaging. we know they need high-quality early learning opportunities. another interesting issue is something at would tell president ronnie but i cannot blog about it that there are huge number of children growing up in single families. those single moms have no interest but to go to work. i'd think paid leave is a critical component of any early chocolate strategy but at the most, we would love to have his three months in this country probably. we need high-quality early chou but opportunities.

-- early child hoold opportunitie. od opportunities. many low income women -- they need the kind of a range does that make sense. many child-care assistance at night in the weekends and then a high quality pre-k program in the mornings. more flexible, complex solutions. i still think it is a major need an with middle-class families facing more economic strains, the cost of college and housing, they need assistance because they're buying the kind of child care that is -- if they're honest, they're not really happy about. >> i think you hit it right on the head. we have a care giver crisis.

it is not just for the elderly. it is also for children. on what the situation with children, we have spent some resources on the elderly. there is a social security. we all contribute to social security. elderly people have a minimum. some minimum protection. we are in a nursing home, there are minimal protections for people who work with the elderly to make sure they are treated ok. we do not call the leader learning area although i think some of them do have leader learning opportunities in those facilities. and these the recognition that the elderly need to be treated -- at least a recognition that the elderly needed to be treated it did a safe manner.

there are no minimums with children. the states are all over the map. children are reluctant own devices and peres are left on their own. i would say that when you go to the grocery store, you have a choice. yet a choice when he picked up vegetables. and we pick out meeting. meat.d picking somebody has set a bar somewhere and you have made sure there is some minimum that the food will not harm you attend the some way. we do not have that for child care. parents are really out there on their own. they are expected to be their own eyes and experts in a field that is really complicated.

i think the time has really come if we really care about school achievement and posing the achievement gap to making progress, increasing the high- school graduation rate. we've to be looking at those early learning settings and making sure the care giver crisis -- that we are there paying as much attention to the end is in this country as we do to the oldest. i know some might say we are not paying enough attention to the elderly. that may be the case. i think it is a great deal more them spend on the end is. in 1996, i was pregnant with my second child. he's 16 now. that is like three generations of young children have gone

through this cycle of earl the learning. where are we? in some ways, we have made a little bit of progress but as far as the road map to quality, we are not there. how many more generations militate before we make sure that children are in a safe setting and recognized the link between the setting they start off in for five years -- it lisa the ultimate consequence of where they are and how they succeed when they get to school. i would just say i agree and we have to do something about it. >> it eliminates the question completely. we did illuminates the question completely. one of the gaps that have to be

closed is the generational gap. i have the pleasure of being on the board of directors, an organization that ought to be at this table. typical of things i do read about the time i go off the board, the organization gets recognized as one of the 50 best nonprofits in the country. they have been a lot of work on this issue of older and younger. what they find is shared sites improve the health of seniors and the education reform is a little kids. i am 68. i will be in 45 days. do i look like i could take care of a kid? i am the oldest of the baby boom generation. yet this is about 54.

the very old you're talking about as a relic of a small portion of the population. the old you want to be focusing on is between me and age 54. basically the aged many active business and political leaders a lot of times. what we want to do is get these people to recognize they have this obligation. because the birth rate is falling, so to speak. if gdp is a function of capital , labor, technology, land and so forth, in that capital component, and gdp is dependent on the production of young adults. educated, a team oriented,

globally competitive, to a in, young adults. if he do not have them, you will not be competitive. gdp will not grow. he will not solve any of these problems. and you will drift like greece or japan. but what is thrilling to me is the challenge of becoming militant over the requirement that the baby boomers have a responsibility even in their own self interest. they should be doing what the constitution says. some of you may have noticed i glanced at my cellphone earlier. i wanted to make sure i have the wording right. the constitution says we ordain and establish this constitution to preserve the blessings of

liberty. they could put it. there they did not. -- they could have put a period there but they did not. it preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and prosperity. that is what the constitution says. it contemplates a multiple generations as having civil rights. a society systematically deprive its youngest of nutrition health care, strong parenting or caring, housing and the other things necessary to be successful in life.

to deny it at that age means you forget about k-12 reform. you will have you have now which is steadily falling. haskell sat scores. you began to under unprecedented kids 15, 20 years ago. -- under invest in kids 15, 20 years ago. these things require education, particularly in a modern era. to deny a child at the earliest point in denton his life so that he will never get back on track is profoundly aggressively a civil rights violation.

as a student of history, i see no way for this community to achieve what it seeks to achieve except by becoming much more militant. >> powerful. the start ticking questions. -- let's start taking questions. >> i have so much to say. i will avoid doing that. and will pose a question. i would like to highlight that i came wearing a different hat and now i was begun behalf of the national association for regulatory administration. which oversees licensing for chao care, adult care, and child welfare. i just came from california and

to put some context around the remarks, the department of community care licensing in california overseas all of those residential chao care and adult care settings. and are responsible for inspecting more than 100,000 facilities. so they do get rounds every five years. but they respond to complaints much more regularly. the candidates, i think if new america and others could just put the comments made by the candidates in that environment side-by-side, we would see a stark contrast in their civil commitment. that would be a worthwhile thing to do. finally, some of the candidates you have not talked about, we

have a set of candidates out there running for office and in this state legislators. it is within state legislatures that regulation is enacted and improved. -- and approved. i would like the comments and connections from the presidential candidates on down the line to where state based rights and regulations are connected to regret that is a very good point. we david knowing there are a lot of other things going on at the state level. >> the early education consortium -- yes spoken

strongly to the need for improvement and reform. one of the things i'm ruck by is the why. why aren't the campaigns picking this up and talking about investing in kids and making a party of the crisis in the care of and we have -- the crisis in caregiving we have. you mentioned that parents are tapped right now. there is an additional capacity for resources that would be necessary to meet reforms. he mentioned about the k-12 world where resources are also constrained. is there something in the why, why campaigns and not picking this up that is related to the resource issue and the need for prioritization and shifting priorities that explains why this isn't the issue it was in

1996 with welfare reform? >> i think my answer is similar for both. a big part of a why has to do with the money question. and where the resources are going to come from to make this possible. to really invest in our young kids. there has been a real chill right now over been any will to have any conversations about innovation or new initiatives. even consolidating programs in a way that would lead to better outcomes but still require some federal and state investment. those kinds of conversations are

dampened by the cloud hanging over everything right now when it comes to try to figure out of it will be any more government revenue to use to do this with. a lot of us are thinking everyone is stalling on this because of the debt question and the election. the november 7, it will ramp back up. maybe. my worry is that if we're not having these conversations now, we will not be prepared for when some of those roadblocks are moved in the near future. i am struck by what helen said earlier. which is that in the past, there been conversations about trouble with the deficit yet there with the ability to think about investing in young children and

now grappling with that. we are dead a place where we as a society cannot think about it in a broader way because we are seeing a shrinking pie. that is a big problem to put out there. at the state level, there are -- because of the race to the top, early learning challenge grants have some really innovative and dynamic leaders. we have some states that are moving fairly quickly in a constrained environment. to be thinking about more children having access or at least setting up a stage so children will have access when

things open up a little bit again. now we have almost a have not situation. educational opportunities depend on zip code. we are in the same place when it comes to young children, opportunities for their families, opportunities for early learning environment. there is more to say on the state front. i would encourage you to look at a previous event that david and i held, that is online, the video is archived. i will give time over to some other folks. >> we will go to grace. >> some great questions.

i think everyone in the room should think about how we can change this. number one, eric, to your point, why are they not talking about it? because they do not have to. they can get away with it. nobody is calling them. we are not standing up and saying, fixed out care, do something about it. we see a connection. to your point, do something and will find people who do. until we find people and stand up in an articulate and make that point -- you cannot do it at one rally. it is every day. unless there is a civil commitment for every day to stand up and raise his ability on this issue, then they can get away with it because they can. second, i think this is to your point. why is nothing being done? congress is the most polarized congress in years.

i think there has to be a message from voters who sent them there to review policy, make sure what is happening is effective, that we are headed in the right direction, to reach common ground when necessary, and that compromise is not a dirty word. as long as congress is allowed to be polarized, taking a political positions rather than good public policy decisions to promote families and assist children and make connections with the rest of us do, then you get what you get. i hope the next congress will look at the finding common ground and doing right by families with children. the american public says, enough of polarization. we are sick of it. keep the political press release, give it to somebody who wants it. not us. we are done with it. compromise is not a dirty word, and finding common ground, incremental change. that is how it happens. what are we doing about it?

i heard a question -- i think that we in our report, i hope it comes across this way, we are looking to find the most effective way possible to ensure that there can be inspections on a frequent basis, a regular basis, to insure that children are in the best setting they can be in. building on that, we are working to get a nation-wide network of parents who will stand up and make these points. i agree with helen. we should be ashamed that only one out of every six children in this country receives assistance. all the studies show that low- income children have the most to gain from access to high-quality care.

what i also know is that this is not a low-income family issue. this is an issue -- child care is an issue for all families. all families with working moms, that is 2/3 of moms of children under 5 in the work force, that is an issue for all of them. when i talk to my neighbors, everybody talks about how to find care. how to afford it. once you get it, then you get questions of quality. what is good enough? what can i live with? we are working to change that. it is great to talk to each other, but you have to talk to policy-makers, absolutely, at the state level. in every state capital. not just at rally day, but every day. also each out to congress. we have about 13,000 parents in our network.

we have about 80 parent leaders leave and working with to bring to d.c. and have some training. they think, laws, they're the experts. we say, you parents, you are the experts. we need a confidence builder to accept that. you do not think so. you think, the congress and staff, they are the experts. they are, but they know it from a different lens. they know it mostly from hearing about it from you. parents need to come together and understand that they have power in coming together and in increasing visibility. without the visibility, we are right back at the beginning. all these policymakers and candidates running for state and federal office, even at the highest level, for president, they do not have to say a thing if they can get away with it.

it is only if you can create the buzz to make them address the issues. the billions of dollars for the bankers -- the bankers did not just talk to each other and say, yes, i hope somebody does something. they came to d.c., came to the state level, they were loud and clear -- do something. parents have to do the same thing. >> i want to -- we will get to a place where by the time we get to the last question we may be right at our 2:00 time. one more question to add to this mix here -- one question here from the lady to arrive. >> good afternoon. i am with title 1 report. thank you for having us. i wanted to ask of you -- how in your organizations are you going to try to get some questions about early child care and learning into this presidential debate? how are we going to get the candidates talking? as far as the reauthorization, had we get those infant and toddler and early learning in there?

>> he is ready to go, i know. he will answer that question. >> i actually have an answer for you. >> rob is up. then you'll have the last word. >> i will go ahead and let helen have the last word. the reason the bankers got what they got was because they were organized. there were literally quite prepared to show up in the thousands. and they did, in washington d.c., where it mattered. on weekends, parents have to show up in the numbers people can visibly see. 5000, 10,000, 25,000, at a state capital, on a weekend. that is what is visible. that marks a change in the civic state of the capital sector.

it has changed from being a recipient and passive and accommodative to being assertive, aggressive, and insistence that the country do what they should do, which makes sense economically and civilly. the reason it has not been done, and i believe it is first a question of money, is very clear. second, the money question has not been expressed that as a civil question. a third, it is not quite recognized yet how vitally dependent the country is on a trained, educated, a team- oriented, likable, fun, youthful human capital population, young adult population. as for the state level, i think a lot is happening. we work at the state level and attempt to put together a business coalition, a business leader groups that recognize the

importance of educating kids from conception to properly taken care of them, conception to kindergarten. we find more and more business people who get the reality. their understanding what the situation is. they are increasingly ready to take action. additionally, in this area at least appointed to, educating early actually solves elementary school problems, we published a report last march on social impact finance. reduce special education costs. what we know is that the quality 3-year pre-kindergarten -- that yields a reduction in special education costs alone, and to pay for all the services.

at the state level, at this understanding can take place and people can understand it. it can even be done on a school district level. the power of technology and communication is enabling people to act at local levels in the way they can at federal levels. as an act of the county and state level, it becomes clear at the federal level what needs to be done. from my standpoint, the beginnings of this process are sufficiently still new that it would be a third reason why we should not be surprised by what is relative inaction at the federal level. at the state level, a lot is going on. what lisa and david are doing is informing this and energizing it, making it easier for those of us attempting to organize business leaders in the states

and increase the use of social impact finance. i am very encouraged by what is happening at the local and state level. >> helen for the last word. >> let me first give the most simple answer to your question. something everyone can do when they leave this room. good to our web site www.nwlc.org. there's one bought the shares you how to tweet and twitter the host of the debates and addressed early childhood and child care. if you can do that, all your friends can do that, maybe if we get enough people to do it they will actually ask a question. there is also a map that says put chi-0-ld care on the map, to encourage everybody you know to get state and federal elected officials into child care centers and they, too, can put a pin on that map.

i agree we have to be more militant. we have used more of this techniques, both in the reauthorization and in the -- we have to be more demanding. i believe this is a congress that is not doing much of anything. that is definitely a challenge to get anything constructive said. we have to push more. but i guess -- i would disagree -- i think there is some interesting activity going on in the states, but there is a lot of shallow activity going on the stage, and serious situation is going on in state funding for -- child care and early education. in some places where it may look good system-wide, it is very precarious on what we can maintain in terms of a strong early childhood system.

but my final remark, since i was allowed to be the last word, is to the business leaders. i would urge all the business leaders who have increasingly stepped up to support early childhood to also step up to the tax committees and point out all the tax loopholes we can close and all the tax increases that are absolutely viable that will provide the revenues that we need to provide the early childhood system that our children and families deserve. i think that is doable. >> please join me in saying thank you to all our speakers today. [applause] thank you. we have our marching orders now. thank you to the foundation and to c-span. thank you for joining us today.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i will go to the presentation which will outline the historical account of the attack as things transpired that day. it's pretty intense. a lot of things happen very quickly. i will do my best not to ramble on and go to fast. i would ask you to sit back and put yourself in that room. as a nation of 300 million americans was attacked by 19 al qaeda terrace. >> more from robert darling inside the president's walker. sunday on c-span3.

>> the first of the presidential debates, next wednesday, live on c-span, c-span radio and online at cspan.org. and a few moments, last night the dates for nevada sen. several live events to tell about today, including homeland security secretary janet napolitano on cyber security. she recently told members of congress that the threat of cyber terrorism need immediate congressional attention. that is on c-span2 at 8:00 a.m. eastern. at 8:30 on c-span3, a conference on counterfeit prescription drugs. speakers include the head of the food and drug administration and the ceo of the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying group.

here on c-span, the president at the woodrow wilson center at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the yemeni president. >> the first thing in our article here is getting medicare costs under control. the number one priority. it is the most untouchable thing. that is going to cause more trouble than any other problem we have talked fiscally in the united states. getting medicare costs under control as the number one thing. >> you say we also surcharge smokers and the apiece for their medicare coverage. where did that idea come from? >> if came from us. i mean, i am the person who put in the memo but i did not have to fight very hard for it. to fight very hard for it.